![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Or, "Why is the name of this article so dang long?" This article was originally a long-ish section of Monopoly (game), that I forked off for further expansion, and to keep the size of the main article down. In doing so, I tried to follow article naming per WP:TITLE, specifically: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Because even the main game article itself is Monopoly (game) (due to the existence of economic monopolies), I felt from the moment I forked off the article that "History of Monopoly" would be asking for trouble as it's too ambiguous. -- JohnDBuell 11:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have recently begun an RFC on this. I would like a consensus to be formed under one of the following proposals. Please vote Support ONLY under one of the following, with your reasons. Thanks for your input! -- JohnDBuell 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should state my reasons of opposition to this. It's mostly an issue of ambiguity. There are those that find this the most simple title, but not specifying that the Parker Brothers board game is the subject I feel is asking for trouble (see above). Further, I have found in my research that authors on the subject of the game tend to use "monopoly" when writing about the "folk game" pre-Darrow and pre-Parker Brothers, and "Monopoly" when writing about the game Darrow produced and sold to PB. One could argue for splitting the current article in half on these grounds, but I feel a single comprehensive history article is still the best. For the record, PB/Hasbro officially treat the word in all caps as their trademark, though I'm not sure its use would be appropriate on Wikipedia. -- JohnDBuell 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Support this change, per Peter's comments in the section above. Using " History of monopoly" to refer to economic monopolies would be ungrammatical and illogical, as he explains. " History of Monopoly" is unambiguous. As for the folk games, none of them were actually named "monopoly" with an initial lowercase letter. But they form part of the history of Monopoly, the PB-trademarked game, which is the subject of this article. Andrew Levine 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
Since Monopoly has also been recreated as a computer game, "board game" is not a good choice. siafu 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have another suggestion, please add it here.
Monopoly - History of the board game -- Caligvla 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the articles History of Monopoly, History of monopoly and History of the board game Monopoly are related thus:
I suggest this setup:
That sounds relatively fine to me. Finally, kids, don't name your board games after an economic practice. Ever heard of Risk? That's a dangerous one in my book. :) Would you support or oppose? - Gracenotes T § 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Or, "Why is the name of this article so dang long?" This article was originally a long-ish section of Monopoly (game), that I forked off for further expansion, and to keep the size of the main article down. In doing so, I tried to follow article naming per WP:TITLE, specifically: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Because even the main game article itself is Monopoly (game) (due to the existence of economic monopolies), I felt from the moment I forked off the article that "History of Monopoly" would be asking for trouble as it's too ambiguous. -- JohnDBuell 11:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have recently begun an RFC on this. I would like a consensus to be formed under one of the following proposals. Please vote Support ONLY under one of the following, with your reasons. Thanks for your input! -- JohnDBuell 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel I should state my reasons of opposition to this. It's mostly an issue of ambiguity. There are those that find this the most simple title, but not specifying that the Parker Brothers board game is the subject I feel is asking for trouble (see above). Further, I have found in my research that authors on the subject of the game tend to use "monopoly" when writing about the "folk game" pre-Darrow and pre-Parker Brothers, and "Monopoly" when writing about the game Darrow produced and sold to PB. One could argue for splitting the current article in half on these grounds, but I feel a single comprehensive history article is still the best. For the record, PB/Hasbro officially treat the word in all caps as their trademark, though I'm not sure its use would be appropriate on Wikipedia. -- JohnDBuell 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Support this change, per Peter's comments in the section above. Using " History of monopoly" to refer to economic monopolies would be ungrammatical and illogical, as he explains. " History of Monopoly" is unambiguous. As for the folk games, none of them were actually named "monopoly" with an initial lowercase letter. But they form part of the history of Monopoly, the PB-trademarked game, which is the subject of this article. Andrew Levine 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
Since Monopoly has also been recreated as a computer game, "board game" is not a good choice. siafu 15:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have another suggestion, please add it here.
Monopoly - History of the board game -- Caligvla 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the articles History of Monopoly, History of monopoly and History of the board game Monopoly are related thus:
I suggest this setup:
That sounds relatively fine to me. Finally, kids, don't name your board games after an economic practice. Ever heard of Risk? That's a dangerous one in my book. :) Would you support or oppose? - Gracenotes T § 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)